Standardized tests are moronic. They are not predictive of eventual success and do little more than train kids to memorize. How about we try teaching critical thinking instead of producing little robots.

The reliance on standardized testing is actually less about improving education, and more essentially a give away to testing companies. NCLB created a huge market for testing companies across the country, basically giving them a huge shot in the arm. It ties Administrations to the tests, their funding reliant upon them, and focuses them not on education, but on performance on these tests, and away from skills based education. It ties their hands on teaching to the test, and less on serving the learning styles of their students, in fact, underserving many of their students who do not fit certain models. It's not about "precious snowflakes" but rather tying the hands of teachers and educators to teaching towards a test model that is flawed, and does little to assess skills and promotes the idea of a "one size fits all" approach that, simply put, doesn't assess anything but the skills of a student to take a particular test, and a test model that does little to assess student progress. Standardized tests are a great way for folks without an education background to conceptualize "progress" without actually understanding the process, and that is the problem with the current model. It is a great way to feel good about doing something, as opposed to doing something useful.

I'm not saying the current crop of standardized tests is any good, but there is a need for standards. You can't have some school district in BFE decide they're going to teach kids that the world is flat and condoms give you AIDS. Also can't let them hire morans as teachers in the name of cutting taxes.

I don't have any background in education, just anecdotal stories from my mom's time as a high school teacher in West Virginia, and some of the other teachers she interacted with at conferences and the like. That ranting only got worse during the NCLB years though.

Much as helicopter parents are annoying and usually wrong about most things, standardized testing is a) over-relied upon, and b) not a great way of measuring students' learning progress. So, they have a point.

CPT Ethanolic:Standardized tests are moronic. They are not predictive of eventual success and do little more than train kids to memorize. How about we try teaching critical thinking instead of producing little robots.

The SAT is, actually, even within the bounds of those that go to the same program at the same college, accounting for approximately 9 total credit hour*score difference predictively, even with high school GPA factored in. So, could you explain in more detail what standardized tests you are referring to.

Finland's got a nice system, but much of what makes that work is cultural. North America just doesn't treat learning, science, education or teachers the same way. Implementing their system here wouldn't work without careful adaptation for NA culture.

The motivation behind all this testing is to vilify teachers and hunt down the bad ones. Lots of people are being sold on the idea that all we need to do to fix schools is remove bad teachers. Oh, and also close down bad schools, since they're like McDonald's franchises, and if you close a bad school all those kids will just go elsewhere.

In reality, we need teacher positive solutions. More training, more rewards for teachers, smaller class sizes, and better textbooks, facilities, and equipment. It's hard to teach 35 kids in a room without air conditioning.

If I weren't painfully aware of the adage about malice vs. stupidity, I'd swear that NCLB was concocted to deliberately prevent public school students from learning to think critically. The teach-to-test model makes all of the knowledge they do have so compartmentalized that they can't see or draw connections between events, concepts, or facts (a key component of critical thinking) without being led by the hand. It also results in them expecting to be spoon-fed at every step of an assignment, because that's what they were raised with.

This is based on 6 years of teaching NCLB'd students at the college level, plus all of my colleagues' evaluations of the same. Whatever you might think of Millenials as a group, this problem was inflicted on them rather than earned. Thankfully humans are pretty resilient, but I predict we'll see a long-term ripple effect as this generation ages and starts participating more heavily in the workforce, society, and politics.

Standardized testing is a really useful tool....as a barometer of where kids are when they take the test.

Things like "54% of 3rd grade kids think Helena is in Greece. We should probably fix that."

Using it as the only thing guiding funding and the only thing standing between a school that works and a school that gets taken over by the government (where it does worse) is where the idea becomes patently retarded.

Sadly, that's all politicians see when they look at this data. Not "let's ask instructors to teach to the areas that currently suck" but "Us politicians are smarter than people who have been teaching their whole lives! Lets interfere!"

Children in English state (ie public, in US terms) schools have an insane number of these tests, and the government wants more. Tests for four year olds are coming.

In Scotland they tried to introduce similar test about 20 years ago. The teachers said "Please keep your children at home that day. These tests won't help anyone and will harm your child's education". 85% of children failed to show up and the tests were dropped, never to reappear.

FTFA:They are opposed to the practice for myriad reasons, including the stress they believe it brings on young students

Well, by all means, please do continue to ensure that your child has no ability to cope with adversity, so that when he first experiences in the real world, he collapses in a hopeless pile of drool.

discomfort with tests being used to gauge teacher performance

Please, that would imply there is a penalty for teacher incompetence. We know this isn't true.

fear that corporate influence is overriding education

HAaaaahaaaahahahahahahah. Oh, your serious? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAA. Corporate influence? The whole problem with education is that it is being ruined by unions, the antithesis of corporation.

and concern that test prep is narrowing curricula down to the minimum needed to pass an exam.

You mean expanding. With the curricula needed to pass the exam, there would be no curricula at all. It would be musical chairs and duck duck goose all day every day, because the teachers get paid either way.

But no need to worry about these parents, as their willingness to have children demonstrates their intelligence.

Lochsteppe:If I weren't painfully aware of the adage about malice vs. stupidity, I'd swear that NCLB was concocted to deliberately prevent public school students from learning to think critically. The teach-to-test model makes all of the knowledge they do have so compartmentalized that they can't see or draw connections between events, concepts, or facts (a key component of critical thinking) without being led by the hand. It also results in them expecting to be spoon-fed at every step of an assignment, because that's what they were raised with.

This is based on 6 years of teaching NCLB'd students at the college level, plus all of my colleagues' evaluations of the same. Whatever you might think of Millenials as a group, this problem was inflicted on them rather than earned. Thankfully humans are pretty resilient, but I predict we'll see a long-term ripple effect as this generation ages and starts participating more heavily in the workforce, society, and politics.

While I don't disagree, I think there's a lot of critical thinking skill that needs to be taught at home.

CSBWhen I was growing up, a lot of kids in my classes were clueless. In almost all of them, there was a common thread of the parents trying to do everything for them.

The kids that were smart tended to be from homes that encouraged thinking....or were broken homes./CSB

If you don't have to think for yourself when you are young, you won't be able to think for yourself when you are trying to complete college.

One of my good friends is an elementary school teacher and the test scores determine her level of performance. Even when kids who don't speak English are in her class, or mentally handicapped kids, or autistic kids who just can't deal with a test environment although they might know the material. All those children get big fat zeros and that brings the class average down and counts against her. If children who ARE capable of taking the test are opting out, that actually hurts teachers like my friend even more.

I agree that standardized tests, to some degree, measure your ability to take a standardized test. I always liked taking them, because I was good at them.

But they are not a new phenomenon. As a kid growing up in New Jersey in the 1970s and 1980s, I took any number of standardized tests (the Iowa test and the California test are two that I distinctly remember). Nobody made a fuss, and there were no breathless stories on the news about the perils of testing. That's why I have trouble giving much credence to the anti-testing hysteria. I have three kids who take the FCAT every year, and for them there is essentially nothing in the way of fuss or stress associated with it. Mostly, it's an interruption in their normal schedule for a few days.

I also live in the real world, where objectives are set, progress is measured, and performance matters. I understand the adage, "you cannot manage what you do not measure". There has to be some way of measuring the performance of students, teachers, schools, and districts.

Someone upthread called these tests "a giveaway to the testing companies." Does that mean that standardized testing would be better if each state used taxpayer-funded employees to develop its own tests? Would that be cheaper? Would the tests be more fair? Of higher quality?

Standardized tests are neither a panacea nor a curse. They provide a data point, and that data point has value.

CPT Ethanolic:Standardized tests are moronic. They are not predictive of eventual success and do little more than train kids to memorize. How about we try teaching critical thinking instead of producing little robots.

Dafatone:As someone who teaches writing nowhere near North Carolina, I'm curious. How so?

It's been a while, and I've purged most of the writing from my mind, but I seem to recall:

First paragraph should always START generalized then funnel down into what you REALLY want to talk about (Apparently, going straight off the bat into your topic is a no-no! So I learned to start with bullshiat generalizations, etc.). Then you need at least one sentence that states EXPLICITLY what your next three paragraphs will be.

The next there paragraphs must describe/talk about your topic. When I took it, it ALWAYS needed to be three paragraphs in the body, and they needed to be about different/slightly different things. So you were taught to ALWAYS find a way to break your subject into three chunks. MORE THAN THREE PARAGRAPHS=BAD. Less than three, BAAAAAAD! Because they ahve to grade it by incredibely precise criteria, so they all have to be close to the same.

Then a conclusion paragraph, where you sum up what you said, and funnel back out to general again!

It was more the "Funneling" plus the "ALWAYS THREE BODY PARAGRAPHS!" that farked me over for a bit. I adapted quick, but damnit it was irritating to realize it had been such a waste of time.

I'm just gonna say it. The only reason I'd keep my kids away from standardized testing is if I knew it would embarrass them. Like, they'd just bomb the thing because they were idiots.

Regardless of how bad standardized testing is, is it really necessary to draw attention to yourself by refusing to take it? I mean, really? What harm is it doing to your child, or you, as individuals? It lets you know (more often than not) where your kid stands, and knowledge is important for progression. That's why they're in school.

Either the parents are stupid, or the kids are stupid. I mean that literally. There is no reason to soapbox this issue when the cost to your kid and knowledge of how to handle their future is so high.

ikanreed:CPT Ethanolic: Standardized tests are moronic. They are not predictive of eventual success and do little more than train kids to memorize. How about we try teaching critical thinking instead of producing little robots.

The SAT is, actually, even within the bounds of those that go to the same program at the same college, accounting for approximately 9 total credit hour*score difference predictively, even with high school GPA factored in. So, could you explain in more detail what standardized tests you are referring to.

The SAT has the rather notorious reputation of being a poor predictor for both future success and potential.

Cybernetic:I agree that standardized tests, to some degree, measure your ability to take a standardized test. I always liked taking them, because I was good at them.

But they are not a new phenomenon. As a kid growing up in New Jersey in the 1970s and 1980s, I took any number of standardized tests (the Iowa test and the California test are two that I distinctly remember). Nobody made a fuss, and there were no breathless stories on the news about the perils of testing. That's why I have trouble giving much credence to the anti-testing hysteria. I have three kids who take the FCAT every year, and for them there is essentially nothing in the way of fuss or stress associated with it. Mostly, it's an interruption in their normal schedule for a few days.

I also live in the real world, where objectives are set, progress is measured, and performance matters. I understand the adage, "you cannot manage what you do not measure". There has to be some way of measuring the performance of students, teachers, schools, and districts.

Someone upthread called these tests "a giveaway to the testing companies." Does that mean that standardized testing would be better if each state used taxpayer-funded employees to develop its own tests? Would that be cheaper? Would the tests be more fair? Of higher quality?

Standardized tests are neither a panacea nor a curse. They provide a data point, and that data point has value.

If it's anything like the "Adventures in Outsourcing: Tales of My School District IT Department" the in-house results would be clunkier, not as sexy, more functional, more reliable, and cheaper.

Since pretty much all states are on board with common core standards now, though, I'd imagine more and more state achievement tests will be going the way of the Dodo.

Cybernetic:I agree that standardized tests, to some degree, measure your ability to take a standardized test. I always liked taking them, because I was good at them.

But they are not a new phenomenon. As a kid growing up in New Jersey in the 1970s and 1980s, I took any number of standardized tests (the Iowa test and the California test are two that I distinctly remember). Nobody made a fuss, and there were no breathless stories on the news about the perils of testing. That's why I have trouble giving much credence to the anti-testing hysteria. I have three kids who take the FCAT every year, and for them there is essentially nothing in the way of fuss or stress associated with it. Mostly, it's an interruption in their normal schedule for a few days.

I also live in the real world, where objectives are set, progress is measured, and performance matters. I understand the adage, "you cannot manage what you do not measure". There has to be some way of measuring the performance of students, teachers, schools, and districts.

Someone upthread called these tests "a giveaway to the testing companies." Does that mean that standardized testing would be better if each state used taxpayer-funded employees to develop its own tests? Would that be cheaper? Would the tests be more fair? Of higher quality?

Standardized tests are neither a panacea nor a curse. They provide a data point, and that data point has value.

The issue isn't taking tests. It's spending all year teaching how to take tests.

JPSimonetti:I'm just gonna say it. The only reason I'd keep my kids away from standardized testing is if I knew it would embarrass them. Like, they'd just bomb the thing because they were idiots.

Regardless of how bad standardized testing is, is it really necessary to draw attention to yourself by refusing to take it? I mean, really? What harm is it doing to your child, or you, as individuals? It lets you know (more often than not) where your kid stands, and knowledge is important for progression. That's why they're in school.

Either the parents are stupid, or the kids are stupid. I mean that literally. There is no reason to soapbox this issue when the cost to your kid and knowledge of how to handle their future is so high.

Standardized tests are an inadequate tool for measuring knowledge. Why waste our time trying to teach students how to pass these tests when we could be just teaching student?